9. SBIA Stage 7: Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting – What
4. Resources and Costs of Monitoring
There is normally only a very broad indication of relative costs in the higher-level monitoring plans, e.g., high, medium, or low. It is essential to assess the required resources and costs of implementing the monitoring plan. This involves estimating the approximate financial cost and/or amount of staff time needed to monitor each indicator. It may be necessary to identify a funding source in cases in which this cost cannot be met by the project revenue.
5. Indicator Status (Measurement Value and Date)
The indicator status is normally “planned”, “partially collected”, “on-going”, or “completed”. Collection of the starting conditions indicator data is normally the first implementation step of the monitoring work plan. In some cases, data may be available going back through time (e.g., remote sensing or demographic data), and it could be possible to compare trends before and after the project start date.
The indicator status should be updated at least annually.
6. Summary Reports
Summary reports at appropriate time intervals should be prepared in a format and style appropriate to key audiences.
9.3 Data Processing, Analysis, and Presentation
Each monitoring method will produce information that must be processed, summarized, and presented in a way that is understandable to the users. The tendency is for the time and cost of these stages to be badly under-estimated. It is important to decide how the data will be analyzed when the monitoring plan is developed in order to ensure that the necessary skills and resources are available.
The CCB Standards require the estimation of net social and biodiversity benefits; a key challenge is therefore to determine whether the observed positive changes outweigh negative ones. For social impacts, local communities themselves should feel that the net effect is positive – it is therefore important that the analysis is easy to understand, transparent, and well-communicated. Ideally, local stakeholders should participate in the analysis.
For biodiversity impacts, the degree to which negative impacts are offset by positive ones will depend on the conservation value of the affected species or ecosystems. For example, positive effects on highly threatened species will justifiably outweigh negative impacts on widespread, common species.
Estimation of net benefits must be done by comparing actual monitoring results to the “without-project” social and biodiversity projections done for Stage 2. For projects using the CCB Standards, this comparison will form part of the “Project Implementation Report” that must be prepared before a verification audit. This report must include a description of how a project has met each of the requirements of the CCB Standards and will rely on the monitoring results as evidence.
9.4 Stakeholder Reporting and Verification
The reporting requirements of the CCB Standards are designed to promote a high level of transparency and accountability. It is the ethical responsibility of project proponents to share monitoring data with project stakeholders, but it is also necessary to check with a range of stakeholder groups whether the results seem to
accurately reflect reality. Therefore, this stage needs to be undertaken prior to finalizing the report so that the latter can be modified as necessary.
Projects need to think carefully about how best to transmit the monitoring plans and data, and the process leading to them, to local stakeholders. The CCB Standards require an “an evaluation of the [project] impacts by the affected groups” (CCB Criterion CM1.1), but do not specify how stakeholder verification should be carried out, so each project proponent will have to identify the best way of doing it. Where literacy is an issue, this can mean the use of visual aids. Local understanding may be stronger when a more educated local stakeholder, rather than a project officer, makes the presentations and descriptions, partly since they are likely to make fewer assumptions in the presentations.
9.5 Disseminating the Monitoring Plan
Transparency is essential as regards the monitoring results. Reports must include a clear description of how the data was collected and analyzed, together with the summarized results. The CCB Standards also require that projects disseminate the monitoring plan and results through the internet, as well as to communities and other stakeholders in appropriate ways (CCB Criteria CL3.2, CM3.2, and B3.2). Prior to the verification audit, projects must also prepare a report that describes how the project has met the CCB Standards, and this must include the monitoring results. This report must be made public for a 30-day comment period prior to the verification audit.
9.6 Feeding the Results into a Broader Learning Process
Finally, an important rationale for credible and systematic SBIA is its capacity to contribute to a broader learning process about the social and biodiversity effects of REDD+. The review of social impacts of land-based carbon projects (Social Toolbox Section 2) makes it clear that our understanding of the social consequences (in particular) of REDD+ is currently rather weak. We don’t really know what does and does not work as regards achieving social benefits and avoiding negative impacts.
For example, there is much discussion of the likely trade-offs between social and carbon objectives, as well as between carbon and biodiversity objectives in the context of A/R projects, but limited empirical evidence. Due to the lack of attention to attribution, the existing data is of limited use. This situation has led to various contested perspectives on the social effects of REDD+. As emphasized by Jagger et al. (2010), credible impact assessment methodologies are key to a better understanding of the co-benefits of land-based carbon projects.
In the context of the theory of change approach to SBIA, this can lead to a more robust cause-and effect- analysis, and in turn to better project design. It would help future projects avoid making the same mistakes as the current pioneering set of projects, as well as better inform the design of national REDD+ programs.